Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]
RE: 2000 IBC v 1999 UBC code question
[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]- To: "'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: RE: 2000 IBC v 1999 UBC code question
- From: "Scott, William N." <William.Scott(--nospam--at)veco.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:59:25 -0900
On the topic of load combinations: Why do we use 0.5L in some Strength design equations instead of 0.8 (IBC Eq 16-3), where f1 is 0.5 for live loads? This seems to be inconsistent. Bill -----Original Message----- From: Haan, Scott M. [mailto:HaanSM(--nospam--at)ci.anchorage.ak.us] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 7:05 AM To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org' Subject: RE: 2000 IBC v 1999 UBC code question "Using 2000 Alternate Basic Load Combination 1605.3.2 we are NO LONGER allowed a 1/3 stress increase for wind or seismic only unless specifically given in the material section. This means wood only." AISC ASD 89 A5.2 allows a 1.33 increase. AISI Spec. A5.1.3 allows loads to be reduced. ACI 530-99 2.1.1.1.3 allows a 1.33 increase. "Second question, {mostly for those of you in Texas where I know that every home is Engineered :)} where the IBC has been adopted are you still using Simpson numbers or since they have also included a 1/3 increase on steel are you down grading them?" If you read in the footnotes of the "Design Table" of the specific product you using it will indicate whether it used a 1.33 increase was used for the tabulated value, and where to reduce for other loads. If you are using the alternative IBC load combinations the 1.33 increase is allowed. Scott M Haan P.E. Plan Review Engineer Building Safety Division Development Services Department Municipality of Anchorage http://www.muni.org/building phone:907-343-8183 fax:907-249-7399 mailto:haansm(--nospam--at)ci.anchorage.ak.us -----Original Message----- From: George Richards P.E. [mailto:george(--nospam--at)borm.com] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 9:51 AM To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org' Subject: 2000 IBC v 1999 UBC code question Fellow Engineers: I am reviewing the impact the IBC will have on how we design out West. Using 1997 UBC Alternate Basic Load Combination 1612.3.2 we are allowed a 1/3 stress increase for wind or seismic only loading regardless of if the material is wood, steel, or concrete. Using 2000 Alternate Basic Load Combination 1605.3.2 we are NO LONGER allowed a 1/3 stress increase for wind or seismic only unless specifically given in the material section. This means wood only. First question: Did I read this correctly? Second question, {mostly for those of you in Texas where I know that every home is Engineered :)} where the IBC has been adopted are you still using Simpson numbers or since they have also included a 1/3 increase on steel are you down grading them? Thanks in advance. George Richards, P. E. ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp * * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to: * * http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp * * Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web * site at: http://www.seaint.org ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ******** ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp * * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to: * * http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp * * Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web * site at: http://www.seaint.org ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ******** ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp * * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to: * * http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp * * Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web * site at: http://www.seaint.org ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
- Prev by Subject: RE: 2000 IBC v 1999 UBC code question
- Next by Subject: 2000 IBC v 1999 UBC code question
- Previous by thread: RE: 2000 IBC v 1999 UBC code question
- Next by thread: 2000 IBC v 1999 UBC code question
- About this archive
- Messages sorted by: [Subject][Thread][Author][Date]